Tom Coburn: Why are we paying disability to “adult babies”?
posted at 10:13 pm on May 18, 2011 by Allahpundit
On the one hand, yeah.
On the other hand, watch the clip below. If this guy’s not “disabled,” who is?
“Given that Mr. Thornton is able to determine what is appropriate attire and actions in public, drive himself to complete errands, design and custom-make baby furniture to support a 350-pound adult and run an Internet support group, it is possible that he has been improperly collecting disability benefits for a period of time,” Mr. Coburn wrote in a letter Monday to Inspector General Patrick P. O’Carroll Jr…
In an email response to The Washington Times, Mr. Thornton threatened to kill himself if his Social Security payments are taken away, and said the television episode showing him doing woodwork oversold his abilities.
“You wanna test how damn serious I am about leaving this world, screw with my check that pays for this apartment and food. Try it. See how serious I am. I don’t care,” the California man said. “I have no problem killing myself. Take away the last thing keeping me here, and see what happens. Next time you see me on the news, it will be me in a body bag.”…
In his email to The Times, Mr. Thornton said he is not capable of working. He said running the website only takes four hours a month, and he said his craftsman skills were overstated by the program, which showed him working on his adult-sized high chair.
He’d rather die than lose his entitlements, notwithstanding the fact that they’re driving a crushing debt burden that threatens to destroy the country. This makes him different from everyone else … how?
Hey, remember in the marriage post this afternoon how I couldn’t tell if the guy was an alpha male or a beta male? In this case — not so difficult.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
What’s to stop them from simply declining your permission to own a gun if they ‘decide’ you’ve bought too many?
If they can make those background checks expansive to unknown depths on the data on your life, what’s to stop them from simply citing unknown reason for that decline and citing ‘privacy’ concerns as the reason for not telling you?
[I can easily see them using that type of rationale, just to twist the knife a little more]
Galt2009 on January 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM
So Ed Morrissey doesn’t have a problem with the government intruding on a private sale between individuals. Glad that’s on record.
SirGawain on January 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM
The hell it’s not, joker.
SirGawain on January 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM
This would basically amount to a national gun registry. FFLs are required to keep all their records so all the government would have to do is scoop up those documents and they could then track any firearm to it’s owner. Or they could just skip that and start a database via executive order by declaring that is the only way to know if people are indeed using the background check system and not selling guns illegally.
n2sooners on January 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That seems even easier to understand than the 2nd! Managing and limiting personal property is not one of them…
rgranger on January 30, 2013 at 12:29 PM
S
Indeed. What part of “shall not be infringed” is so confusing to you, Ed?
mountainaires on January 30, 2013 at 12:52 PM
The Blue Staters are already lining up at the TAXPAYER TROUGH. They can see an “opportunity” in this “crisis” and they won’t let it go to waste.
Guv. Jerry Brown sounds like he’s first in line:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/30/California-No-Money-To-Disarm-Roughly-20-000-Felons-And-Mentally-Ill-People
mountainaires on January 30, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Understand this law: It is not about gun shows. It would BAN the transfer of guns to your heirs. It would ban militias and force registration of all arms.
Redglen on January 30, 2013 at 1:33 PM
Wrong answer, please try again. There was no “BoR originally did not apply to the states” in our conversation at all. The discussion was what is the law, and has it been for our entire lifetimes. We were not discussing fantasy team historic what if’s.
SWalker on January 30, 2013 at 1:51 PM
We need at least as tough background checks on the illegal immigrants who are invited to stay here by the president. If a kids parent has RESTRAINING orders out, or violations of flaunting our laws, they are TOO violent, too unpredictable to be citizens, and should take the whole family home. Crazy? go home. A Car Theif, go home; a murderer…your whole family goes home.
A background check can’t be one thing for one issue and another thing when it’s something Obama is permissive on. And since the second Amendment is a constitutional law, we should also have equal restriction applied at the federal level against abortion. I think we ought to find some “Privacy” in the constitution for gun owners.
Fleuries on January 30, 2013 at 2:10 PM
Read the other guy’s post, then read yours. It aw sbbeing discussed becaus eye brought it up. You emphatically said he was wrong. He wasn’t. You were. Still are. And are now wrong about the issue being brought up.
Sheesh, just man up and admit it.
Malachi45 on January 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM
It was being discussed because he brought it up, that is.
Malachi45 on January 30, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Steps to reduce violence (not just “gun violence”) :
1) Remove restrictions on all citizens for carrying arms concealed or openly. If you are a US Citizen, over the age of 18, you can carry. Look up Vermont Carry.
2) Restrict “Gun Free Zones” to only those places that have two or more armed security personnel. This does not mean someone can’t carry a firearm there, just not in, oh, jail or prison. A school, without two armed security people, would not be allowed to restrict a parent, teacher, janitor, etc., from having a firearm on campus. Perhaps, as a bone to the Liberals (who aren’t really liberal) install a thumbscan safe in the classroom where the firearm can be stored safely. But you can keep it in your car.
3) People can keep firearms out of their homes, should they desire. I won’t even get snarky and require that they label their homes as “gun free zones” or anything. It is a choice..and if they don’t want a firearm there, OK. It’s a Right, not a Requirement.
Just three starting proposals.
ProfShadow on January 30, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Any Republican who votes for Universal background checks is voting for a Federal Firearms Registration Database.
The current AG has been pushing to keep the NICS records for 10 years, and many people still don’t think the NICS background check records are being destroyed or deleted now.
thmsmgnm on January 30, 2013 at 6:06 PM
You are just naive if you think an increased background check program will not lead to registration. This is the problem with many Republicans – they can’t see past the ends of their noses. The libs are in it for the long term and patiently bit off one chunk at a time. Republicans keep taking them at their word and say “well that isn’t so bad, I’m only giving up a little bit of my liberties.” Then we look back and wonder how we managed to totally surrender all our rights one little bit at time. When are we going to figure out this game? There is no compromising with these people and we just have to learn to say no more. Heck, already the BATFE has no problem going to gun dealers and illegally copying all their 4473′s. Who is going to remind them that is illegal if you want to stay in business? Where is that information going? Bueller?
NO COMPROMISE! MOLON LABE
tballard on January 30, 2013 at 6:09 PM
How about some BACKGROUND CHECKS on Obama and his administration full of people who have genuine criminal histories??
landlines on January 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM
I like you, Ed, but you haven’t thought this through.
This would be a de facto firearm registration. Right now, if I buy a firearm, that information is given to the federal government. They’re supposed to destroy it, but I have no faith that actually occurs. Even with that illegal information, the government can’t identify the owners of specific guns, because I can sell my firearm.
If information about that sale also goes to the government, a simple spreadsheet with names and addresses will allow a targeted confiscation in the future, should outcry from some crisis like Sandy Hook permit the politicians to get away with it.
Congratulations, you just gave Dianne Feinstein and Charles Shumer the first orgasms of their dull, pasty lives.
applebutter on January 30, 2013 at 7:27 PM
Just another stupid, liberal, feel-good, do-nothing idea.
End of story.
JackM on January 30, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Have no idea why GOP and people like you fail to understand that background checks will be a “national registration database” in no time at all.
Really, REALLY, STUPID IDEA.
riddick on January 30, 2013 at 10:46 PM
.
.
Dittos what both of you said.
The Progressives have always been in the “con-business”, and still are.
listens2glenn on January 31, 2013 at 2:35 AM
.
First we have to investigate YOU after a comment like that, to see if you’re a “racist”.
listens2glenn on January 31, 2013 at 2:38 AM
.
No, we’d be better off if it were a “do-nothing” idea.
They want more Federal DOMINION over us, and this gives it to them. : (
listens2glenn on January 31, 2013 at 2:41 AM
1. They don’t enforce current laws.
2. Current mental health “no buy” lists are not updated.
3. How can the current system not be considered de facto registration?
The forms must be kept almost in perpetuity by dealers, must be available to law enforcement investigators and under certain circumstances must be turned over to ATFE. The record of undergoing a check, no matter what they say, is recorded in police computer systems. We all know that nothing that goes into a government data base ever disappears.
4. This is another tax (trundling off to the FFL to pay for another background check and transfer fee) that further drains meager personal budgets to discourage having guns.
5. This bipartisanship is nothing more than giving in to another invasive entre to tyranny.
ironked on January 31, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3